Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Narbonne v. Pearl

Superior Court of Maine, Androscoggin

October 18, 2017

STEVEN M. NARBONNE, Plaintiff
v.
CHAD AVARD PEARL, et al., Defendants.

          Attorney for: STEVEN M NARBONNE JENNIFER FERGUSON - RETAINED

          CHAD AVARD PEARL JUDGMENT - DEFENDANT Attorney for: CHAD AVARD PEARL JUDGMENT JEFFREY P WHITE - RETAINED 05/31/2016 LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY P WHITE

          ROXANNE M PEARL JUDGMENT - DEFENDANT Attorney for: ROXANNE M PEARL JUDGMENT

          ROXANNE M PEARL JUDGMENT - DEFENDANT Attorney for: ROXANNE M PEARL JUDGMENT

          JENNIFER SCRIBNER DISMISSED - DEFENDANT 143 OLD COUNTY ROAD

          DANNYEL POULIN DISMISSED - DEFENDANT

          PHILLIP STEVEN AUDET - DEFENDANT

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          MARYGAY KENNEDY UNITED STSTES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Steven M. Narbonne's ("Narbonne") motion for partial summary judgment against Defendant Phillip Steven Audet ("Audet"). Narbonne contends he is entitled to judgment against Audet on the issue of liability. Audet has not responded to this motion or otherwise appeared in this case.

         I. Background

         On April 4, 2016, Narbonne filed a complaint naming Audet as one of six defendants in this case. (PL's Compl. Caption.) Audet was served on April 11, 2016 but has not made an appearance. Count III of Narbonne's Complaint alleges that on July 5 and July 6, 2014, Audet "recklessly, knowingly and/or intentionally caused bodily injury to Plaintiff...." (Id. ¶ 28.) Audet was indicted on a Class B felony charge of aggravated assault for "[o]n or about July 6, 2014... intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] serious bodily injury to" Narbonne, and he was convicted of this charge on September 4, 2015. (PL's S.M.F. ¶¶ 1-2.)

         II. Standard of Review

         Summary judgment is appropriate if, based on the parties' statements of material fact and the cited record, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, ¶ 14, 951 A.2d 821. "A material fact is one that can affect the outcome of the case. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the factfinder must choose between competing versions of the truth." Dyer, 2008 ME 106, ¶ 14, 951 A.2d 821 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

         When a plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its claims, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing each element of its claims without dispute as to any material fact in the record. Cach, LLC v. Kulas,2011 ME 70, ¶ 8, 21 A.3d 1015. If the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is properly supported, the burden shifts to the defendant to respond with specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial. M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). If an opposing party fails to properly respond, the moving party's factual assertions will not be deemed admitted merely because of the opposing party's failure to respond. Cach, LLC, 2011 ME 70, ¶ 9, 21 A.3d 1015. The moving party must still properly support each factual assertion with citation to the record. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4); Cach, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.